Haoyang Gui

Thales Bertaglia, Haoyang Gui, Catalina Goanta et al.

Public consultations generate large volumes of data in the form of stakeholder submissions that are practically unfeasible to analyse manually. We present an end-to-end LLM-based pipeline and interactive dashboard for structured topic extraction from regulatory consultation submissions, demonstrated on the European Commission's Digital Fairness Act (DFA) public call for evidence as a case study. The system processes raw PDF attachments and web-form responses, extracts topic annotations, and grounds every extraction in a verbatim quote from the source text. Applied to 4,322 DFA submissions, the pipeline produced 15,368 topic annotations supported by 20,951 verbatim evidence quotes. Three principles govern the proposed design: verbatim grounding, full traceability, and transparency by design. The dashboard exposes the full extraction dataset through five analytical views, from dataset-level topic overviews to individual paragraph drill-downs, with every result traceable to its source. Beyond the predefined DFA topic categories, the pipeline generated certain stakeholder concerns, such as Age Verification, Payment Processor Censorship, and Digital Ownership, that a fixed-taxonomy approach would have missed. The pipeline is domain-generic; adapting it to a new consultation requires only a prompt update and a new dataset. A live demo is available at https://dfa-dashboard.thalesbertaglia.com/. The code and processed data are publicly available at https://github.com/thalesbertaglia/dfa-dashboard.

Catalina Goanta, Savvas Zannettou, Rishabh Kaushal et al.

To facilitate accountability and transparency, the Digital Services Act (DSA) sets up a process through which Very Large Online Platforms (VLOPs) need to grant vetted researchers access to their internal data (Article 40(4)). Operationalising such access is challenging for at least two reasons. First, data access is only available for research on systemic risks affecting European citizens, a concept with high levels of legal uncertainty. Second, data access suffers from an inherent standoff problem. Researchers need to request specific data but are not in a position to know all internal data processed by VLOPs, who, in turn, expect data specificity for potential access. In light of these limitations, data access under the DSA remains a mystery. To contribute to the discussion of how Article 40 can be interpreted and applied, we provide a concrete illustration of what data access can look like in a real-world systemic risk case study. We focus on the 2024 Romanian presidential election interference incident, the first event of its kind to trigger systemic risk investigations by the European Commission. During the elections, one candidate is said to have benefited from TikTok algorithmic amplification through a complex dis- and misinformation campaign. By analysing this incident, we can comprehend election-related systemic risk to explore practical research tasks and compare necessary data with available TikTok data. In particular, we make two contributions: (i) we combine insights from law, computer science and platform governance to shed light on the complexities of studying systemic risks in the context of election interference, focusing on two relevant factors: platform manipulation and hidden advertising; and (ii) we provide practical insights into various categories of available data for the study of TikTok, based on platform documentation, data donations and the Research API.

Haoyang Gui, Thales Bertaglia, Catalina Goanta et al.

Content monetization on social media fuels a growing influencer economy. Influencer marketing remains largely undisclosed or inappropriately disclosed on social media. Non-disclosure issues have become a priority for national and supranational authorities worldwide, who are starting to impose increasingly harsher sanctions on them. This paper proposes a transparent methodology for measuring whether and how influencers comply with disclosures based on legal standards. We introduce a novel distinction between disclosures that are legally sufficient (green) and legally insufficient (yellow). We apply this methodology to an original dataset reflecting the content of 150 Dutch influencers publicly registered with the Dutch Media Authority based on recently introduced registration obligations. The dataset consists of 292,315 posts and is multi-language (English and Dutch) and cross-platform (Instagram, YouTube and TikTok). We find that influencer marketing remains generally underdisclosed on social media, and that bigger influencers are not necessarily more compliant with disclosure standards.

Haoyang Gui, Thales Bertaglia, Catalina Goanta et al.

Influencer marketing has become a crucial feature of digital marketing strategies. Despite its rapid growth and algorithmic relevance, the field of computational studies in influencer marketing remains fragmented, especially with limited systematic reviews covering the computational methodologies employed. This makes overarching scientific measurements in the influencer economy very scarce, to the detriment of interested stakeholders outside of platforms themselves, such as regulators, but also researchers from other fields. This paper aims to provide an overview of the state of the art of computational studies in influencer marketing by conducting a systematic literature review (SLR) based on the PRISMA model. The paper analyses 69 studies to identify key research themes, methodologies, and future directions in this research field. The review identifies four major research themes: Influencer identification and characterisation, Advertising strategies and engagement, Sponsored content analysis and discovery, and Fairness. Methodologically, the studies are categorised into machine learning-based techniques (e.g., classification, clustering) and non-machine-learning-based techniques (e.g., statistical analysis, network analysis). Key findings reveal a strong focus on optimising commercial outcomes, with limited attention to regulatory compliance and ethical considerations. The review highlights the need for more nuanced computational research that incorporates contextual factors such as language, platform, and industry type, as well as improved model explainability and dataset reproducibility. The paper concludes by proposing a multidisciplinary research agenda that emphasises the need for further links to regulation and compliance technology, finer granularity in analysis, and the development of standardised datasets.

Haoyang Gui, Thales Bertaglia, Taylor Annabell et al.

The rise of influencer marketing has blurred boundaries between organic content and sponsored content, making the enforcement of legal rules relating to transparency challenging. Effective regulation requires applying legal knowledge with a clear purpose and reason, yet current detection methods of undisclosed sponsored content generally lack legal grounding or operate as opaque "black boxes". Using 1,143 Instagram posts, we compare gpt-5-nano and gemini-2.5-flash-lite under three prompting strategies with controlled levels of legal knowledge provided. Both models perform strongly in classifying content as sponsored or not (F1 up to 0.93), though performance drops by over 10 points on ambiguous cases. We further develop a taxonomy of reasoning errors, showing frequent citation omissions (28.57%), unclear references (20.71%), and hidden ads exhibiting the highest miscue rate (28.57%). While adding regulatory text to the prompt improves explanation quality, it does not consistently improve detection accuracy. The contribution of this paper is threefold. First, it makes a novel addition to regulatory compliance technology by providing a taxonomy of common errors in LLM-generated legal reasoning to evaluate whether automated moderation is not only accurate but also legally robust, thereby advancing the transparent detection of influencer marketing content. Second, it features an original dataset of LLM explanations annotated by two students who were trained in influencer marketing law. Third, it combines quantitative and qualitative evaluation strategies for LLM explanations and critically reflects on how these findings can support advertising regulatory bodies in automating moderation processes on a solid legal foundation.